Security Council Reform: Statement by Ambassador Herman Schaper on behalf of Belgium and the Netherlands

5/2/2012

Statement by H.E. Ambassador Herman Schaper, Permanent Representative of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands

to the United Nations on behalf of Belgium and the Netherlands to the General
Assembly on the issue of “S-5 proposal for improvement of the working methods of
the Security Council New York, 2 May 2012".

Mr. Chairman,

I have the pleasure to speak on behalf of Belgium and the
Netherlands.

I would like to thank you for convening this fifth and final
session in the course of our exchanges dedicated to the Member State initiatives
on the topic of Security Council reform. For this meeting you have invited us to
take a closer look at the letter sent to you on the 8th of September 2011, by
Switzerland on behalf of the Small Five group.

Mr. Chairman,

On the outset we would like to commend the S-5, for their
relentless and ongoing efforts in support of ways to improve the working methods
of the Security Council.

Already since 2005, when a first draft of the S-5 resolution was
presented to us, the S-5 has pursued this objective. This has contributed to the
issue of working methods being placed higher on the agenda of the Security
Council.<br><br>

Belgium and the Netherlands recognize and fully share the
objectives of the S-5 to enhance the Security Council’s accountability to the
wider membership, and to increase the transparency, the legitimacy and
effectiveness of its decisions.

Mr. Chairman,

In recent years, real and encouraging improvements have already
been made in the working methods of the Security Council. There are now more
public briefings, more public debates, more Arria-formulas and more informal
interactive dialogues. It is good to remind ourselves that today the Council is
operating under other, better, and more transparent working methods than before.
So there has been movement, there is movement, and hopefully there will continue
to be movement, be it incremental and sometimes discrete, but movement indeed.
The Netherlands and Belgium would like to commend both the permanent and the
successive elected Members of Council for their efforts in this regard.

As we have stated before, we do not want this further, pragmatic
development of improved working methods to become hostage to a lack of progress
on the wider debate about Security Council reform. In other words, we do not
want the debate on the improvement of Security Council working methods to come
to a halt when there would be no movement or progress on the other chapters of
the Security Council reform agenda that are currently being debated in the
General Assembly.

Mr. Chairman,

Allow me to turn now to the substance of the draft resolution as
presented by the S-5. The draft resolution invites the Security Council to
enhance the implementation of the measures adopted in its Presidential Note 507
and to further consider recommendations as stated in the annex of the
resolution. We welcome the recommendations aimed at increasing the involvement
of States and other parties, non-members of the Security Council, in the
Council’s work, especially recommendations that aim at enhancing the
participation of the chairs of the country-specific configurations of the
Peacebuilding Commission, and of the troop and police contributing countries in
relevant debates and discussions. Furthermore, we support the recommendations
made on increasing the transparency and inclusivity of the work of the Security
Council’s subsidiary bodies, the recommendations made on further improving
procedures regarding requests for de-listing from sanctions lists, the
recommendations made on providing more information to Member States about
relevant developments regarding the planning, preparation, conduct and
termination of operations, and the recommendations made on improving the
drafting of mandates.

We fully recognize the prerogative of the Security Council to
decide on its own working methods, and we applaud efforts to further improve
them by the Security Council working group on working methods. Nevertheless, we
note that the working methods of the Council – although an internal affair – are
relevant for the wider GA Membership as well, because the outcome of the
Council’s work and decisions has direct consequences for all members of the GA.
Therefore, without claiming an inappropriate role for the membership in this
regard, Belgium and the Netherlands would highly appreciate the Security
Council’s willingness to take into account the views of the wider UN membership
on this issue.

Mr. Chairman,

It can be argued that certain elements of the draft resolution
go beyond the scope of the working methods. Especially the recommendations on
the veto go further than just working methods and they are politically sensitive
and very important from an institutional perspective. On substance, we support
the ideas put forward by the S-5 on the veto. In our view this issue should
evidently find a solution within the framework of the comprehensive
intergovernmental reform debate.

In 2006 the S-5 also tabled a draft resolution on the
improvement of working methods, A/60/L.49. At that point in time this triggered
a genuine discussion with the Security Council members on working methods,
resulting in a Presidential Note which opened the way to a number of
improvements.
Likewise, we hope that the current draft will bring the present Security Council
members to tackle with renewed energy, like in 2006, the issue of the Security
Council working methods. As we see it, the draft resolution’s main purpose is to
do exactly that: it is to be seen as a political signal to the Security Council
members that the process of working methods reform, which has been under way for
some time and with encouraging results, deserves to be continued.

As you will remember, this 2006 draft resolution was never put
to a vote. This time, however, the S-5 does intend to put the resolution to a
vote.
In this light, we would be interested to hear the views of the S-5 on what
impact an eventual adoption of the resolution would have on the ongoing process
of the improvement of the working methods of the Security Council. In this
context we would also be interested to know why the S-5 has decided not to
invite countries to co-sponsor the resolution. Co-sponsorship would undoubtedly
have added to the strength of the political signal this draft resolution is
meant to send.

Mr. Chairman,

In conclusion, the matter on the table today is not only about
the improvement of working methods, but also touches upon the fundamental issue
of the relationship and interaction between the General Assembly and Security
Council. For this reason, the proposal presented by the S-5 requires careful
consideration.

Let me reiterate that Belgium and the Netherlands intend to
remain closely and actively involved in the debate on improvement of the working
methods of the Security Council, and in the debate on the broader comprehensive
Security Council reform.